In short:
An aged care facility has failed to get an emergency guardianship order for a 80-year-old Tasmanian resident accused of increasingly aggressive behaviour.
The facility argued the resident required an “assessment and medical review” of his behaviours, which were deemed to be “at a point where he was no longer safe to other residents”.
What’s next?
Tasmania’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal said the situation was not sufficiently “urgent” to make the guardianship order.
A Tasmanian nursing home caring for an allegedly “increasingly physically violent” 80-year-old resident has been knocked back by a tribunal in its bid to have a guardian appointed through an emergency order.
The resident, referred to as UI, is accused of attacking multiple fellow residents in the facility, including pushing a woman, who “died from a fracture sustained in the push”, according to the aged care home.
In a decision published by Tasmania’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT), the facility said UI’s behaviour was “at a point where he was no longer safe to other residents”.
The tribunal heard UI required an “assessment and medical review” of his behaviour, but his family would “not consent to assessment, or acute transfer for investigation and treatment consideration”.
The facility told the tribunal it had “attempted on numerous occasions” to seek consent from [UI’s son] for him “to be referred to be assessed for the Specialist Dementia Care Program (SDCP) needs-based assessments or Dementia Support Australia’s Severe Behaviour Response Team (SBRT)”.
However, it said the last time the son consented to Dementia Support Australia attending, he “did not allow them to assess beyond initial review, not consenting to SDCP or SBRT review”.
Son says he was not ‘adequately informed’
The tribunal heard UI had been assessed a year ago as suitable for assessment at the Roy Fagan Centre, which provides specialist care for elderly persons with mental illness and dementia in Tasmania.
But, the facility said on the day of transfer it was “refused” by UI’s son “on the basis [UI’s son] felt he had not been adequately informed of the reasons for that transfer despite that being discussed with him”.
The facility said multiple complaints had been made by other families and residents regarding [UI]’s “volatile behaviour”, and that there had been multiple aggressive incidents since the start of the year.
The alleged incidents included grabbing a resident, and shaking and shouting at them, “[pushing] a resident in the chest forcefully”, grabbing a resident “with his hands around the neck”, pushing a resident “into shrubbery along a walkway” and biting “a contractor [sic] — dentist”.
“The risk of harm to other residents is significant,” the facility told the tribunal.
An advocate for the resident told the tribunal UI trusted his son, and that “[UI’s son] keeps him in good care and supports him through everything financially, physically and emotionally and he wishes for [his son] to be the one making decisions for him”.
Tribunal ‘not satisfied’ emergency guardianship needed
In its decision, TASCAT determined the situation was not sufficiently “urgent” to justify making the guardianship order.
TASCAT noted evidence had been submitted that UI engaged “in the types of behaviours described in the request and other documents … since January 2022”.
They said “not knowing the cause of UI’s behaviour” was also not new, as well as attempts to obtain consent from UI’s son for assessments and reviews.
“In these circumstances [TASCAT is] not satisfied that there are reasons of urgency of such that an emergency guardian needs to be appointed”, the decision reads.
The request for an emergency guardianship order was dismissed.
Loading…
Posted , updated